a6 murder

[johnl]

I can believe there's no reasoning involved, that much is apparent!

As for the second part of that sentence, you have just made it up. On several occasions you have posted 'facts' about court and prosecution procedure that are clearly nothing more than assumptions on your part because it suits the way you approach the case.

If you 'know' what took place in that court then let's have your proof. Don't just make bald statements like 'that's what happens'.

Honestly johnl, I am speechless at some of the stuff you come out with that has no basis in fact.

Regards
James

I haven't made it up, I don't have to. If the upholstery of the car had carried some evidence they would have kept a piece of the upholstery, not the car.

johnl

[larue]

On the old boards there was some debate as to what happened to the bullets fired at Gregsten. I asked if it was known if the windows or internal bodywork of the Morris were at all damaged by the bullets, as it was stated that Gregsten was 'shot through and through', i.e., the bullets passed right through him. Stan Reid came up with the perfectly reasonable thesis that the driver's window of the car was open and the bullets went through it, to be lost forever in the Bedfordshire countryside. Valerie Storie said that she could hear the blood dripping from Gregsten's wounds, so it must have gone somewhere, but (horrible to contemplate) just how much blood is actually produced from a fatal head-wound when the victim is sitting upright? Once the heart has ceased to function, would there indeed be all that much blood?

I understand that the police stated that the interior of the car was somewhat bloodied, but that a blanket had been placed across the driving seat. (I'm not 100% certain of this, to be honest...further information requested). Given that Gregsten's body was removed from the car, given that the blanket could well have soaked up a good deal of the resulting blood, then perhaps whoever drove the car away wouldn't have been too tainted by surplus blood. I have never seen a photo of the interior of the Morris, although I understand that photos were taken after the discovery of the car, and at least one photo made public. If anyone can reproduce a photo of the car's interior, then I'd be hugely interested to see it.

Nevertheless, it's a valid (though disturbing) point.

Cheers,

Graham

hi Graham

yes, i remember this. it is indeed an interesting question, but one with which i sadly cannot help. below is the section aboot the case from Keith Simpson's book, where he describes the wound from left ear to right cheek. depending upon the orientation of MG's head, the bullets could have passed through the window, were it open. other points of note in this section are mistakes, like the wounds [ and Valeries' ] being caused by a .32 calibre weapon, and VS picking out a spanish sailor [ a spanish sailor??? where did that come from???? ] at the time of publishing, 1978, KS describes MG as VS's 'boyfriend'. that is something he must have learned after the trial...

as KS can be described as an 'expert witness' it seems suprising he made these elementary mistakes in his book, either directly himself, or by failing to proof read the manuscript before publication. so much for experts.





Forty Years of Murder

A famous shooting case that came on my files later was the murder of the young road research scientist Michael Gregston, in a lay-by off the A6 road in Bedfordshire in the early hours of 23rd August 1961. It was that rare thing, a murder in full view of a third person, for Gregston was accompanied that night by an attractive young laboratory assistant, Valerie Storie, who not only saw her boy-friend killed but was herself then raped and nearly killed. The case went down in criminal history as the 'A6 Murder', a prosaic name for it considering the crime took place on an isolated stretch of the A6 that already bore the more sinister name of Deadman's Hill.
According to Valerie's version, and there was no other, a man had surprised them when they were parked in a field near Windsor after dark, chatting in their car. He had tapped on the window, and when it was lowered poked a revolver in, saying, 'This is a hold-up'. He got in the back of their car and, at gunpoint, forced Gregston to drive along a route he dictated for over three hours. Finally he ordered them into the lay-by on Deadman's Hill, near Clophill. It was then about 3 a.m. `I want to kip,' the man said. 'But first I must tie you up.' He tied Valerie's wrists with a piece of rope, and looked for something to use for tying Gregston, still in the driving seat. 'Give me that bag up,' the gunman told him. Gregston was turning to obey when the man fired two shots at his head in quick succession from very close range.
Valerie screamed. 'You shot him, you bastard! Whv did you do that
`He frightened me. He moved too quick, I got frightened.'
She begged him to let her drive Mike to a doctor. His reply later formed a vital clue to Valerie's identifying him:
Be quiet, will you? I'm finking.'
A few minutes later he repeated the word `finking'. Then he ordered Valerie to get into the back of the car with him and take off her knickers. She refused until he threatened to shoot her, and then she obeyed and submitted to rape. This was quickly over. He told her to get out of the car and help him remove Gregston's dead body. He made her show him the gears and start the car for him; and then, from about five to six feet, as she sat on the ground weeping, he shot her five times in rapid succession.
Leaving her apparently dead, the man drove off. Valerie lay there, paralysed in both legs and only semi-conscious, until a farm worker discovered her at about 6.30 a.m.
I went first to the scene, as I always did, to join the police team in their initial survey, then later drove on to Bedford Mortuary. From the fall in temperature, rigor mortis, and other conditions I estimated that Gregston had died between 3 and 4 a.m. He had two .32 calibre bullet wounds of the head, shot 'through and through' from left ear to right cheek. The skin was tattooed round the entry wounds, and the range could not have been more than an inch or two; the shots had evidently been fired in rapid succession, before the head had moved.
On the following Sunday I went across from my Tring house to Bedford Hospital to examine Valerie Storie. She had similar calibre through-and-through wounds, one of the neck and four drilled-in holes in over her left shoulder and down over her arm. I thought probably all five shots, which were in a line, had been fired in quick succession and from beyond arm's range. She was lucky to be alive and would have been luckier had not one bullet transfixed her spine. `I felt the use of my legs go,' she said to me. Sadly, this attractive girl never walked again.
When I saw her in the Bedford Hospital ward Valerie was over her initial shock and half sitting, propped by pillows, quite bright and able to chat. I did not ask what had happened, but said I had come to examine her wounds in order to help the police with their reconstruction. 'I am a Home Office pathologist,' I said, 'but I am also a doctor.' She smiled as the ward sister helped her remove her bed jacket, and made no fuss when I took several 35 mm 'flash' colour stills of her wounds. But only her face and arms moved: her legs were paralysed. I felt (as I often did) more disturbed at this tragic sight in a living creature than by a dead body.
I was impressed by her intelligence and her very clear mental state so soon after her frightful experience. Her account of the rape and of the shooting of Gregston and herself was borne out completely by my medical evidence. I was impressed too by her courage, for obviously
she had to overcome great emotional stress to be able to talk about it as calmly as she did. She did not cry.
A few days afterwards Valerie was transferred—as it happened, to my own Guy's Hospital. She was still there three weeks later, when the police announced in the press and on television that they wished to interview a man named Peter Louis Alphon, who they thought might 'help them with their inquiries'—their usual euphemistic way of saying who was suspect No. 1. On 22nd September the appeal was answered by Alphon himself, and he was taken into custody. Not yet having enough evidence to charge him with the crime, the police came immediately to Guy's in the hope that Valerie was fit enough to attend an identification parade.
They could hardly have come at a worse time, for Dr Rennie was in the process of removing two bullets from her body. He sent the police away, and again refused them the next day; but on 24th September he gave way to their pressure and allowed his patient to be wheeled out on a bed to face a line of men and try to pick out the one who had killed her boy-friend Gregston and shattered her own young life. 'She was not flustered and was quite clear in her mind,' Rennie testified afterwards, 'although she was very keyed up and tense.' The conditions were far from ideal.
It was a peculiarly harrowing ordeal for Valerie: describing the crime to sympathetic doctors and policemen was nothing like so distressing as the prospect of looking again into the face of the man who had defiled and shot her. Further, as often happens at an identification parade, there was considerable police anxiety—mostly unspoken, but keenly felt—for her to pick out the man. The police believed they had the right man, they had spent a month's hard work on getting him there, her identification was vital to the evidence, and they would be disappointed if she said she could not be sure and they had to let him go.
She was still far from well and probably very vulnerable to such pressure: it probably ought not to have been imposed. But nobody can deny that that parade was conducted with scrupulous fairness. For Valerie Storie, in her somewhat emotional state, and eagerness to `get it over', spent only five minutes on her examination of the parade before picking out a man who was not the suspect Peter Louis Alphon but a Spanish sailor, one of the similar but indisputably innocent 'controls'.
Alphon was released from custody, and Detective Superintendent Acott said later that he now 'knew where Alphon was' on the night of the crime and for that and several other reasons he was satisfied of his innocence. It was a pity the police had pressed for an identification parade before Valerie was fit for it. It seems that if they had waited a little longer it would have become clear that they had got the wrong man: Alphon was 'somewhere else'. He led a curious life.
It was unfortunate, too, that the police did not tell Valerie before the parade that she could, if she thought it would help her, ask the men to speak. She would undoubtedly have done so, for. as she had said from the start, she had seen the murderer's face in good light only once, and then briefly, but she had heard his voice for six hours. He had, as she had already told the police, a distinct cockney accent: she remembered particularly that instead of 'things' and 'think' he had always said 'fings'and 'fink'. She would hardly have made a mistake about the Spanish sailor if she had heard him speak.
The day after the parade Valerie was transferred to Stoke Mandeville, the unit in Buckinghamshire that specialized in rehabilitating so many spinal-cord injury victims. The treatment was psychological as well as physical, and there is no doubt that from the day she entered Stoke Mandeville her emotional state improved. Meanwhile Acott had received several telephone calls from James Hanratty, for whom a search was going on: he was located in Blackpool and arrested.
Three weeks after the identification parade Valerie was asked to attend another. This time she asked if she could hear the men speak. There were thirteen on the parade, and she scrutinized them for twenty minutes. She was wheeled up and down the line several times. and asked each man to say 'Be quiet, will you? I'm thinking.' Each man had to say it twice. Finally, without hesitation, she picked out Hanratty, the man who had by then become suspected by the police much more strongly than Alphon had ever been. Hanratty was the man whose `th's' tended to be 'Ps'.
The trial of Hanratty at Bedford Assizes lasted twenty-one days, becoming the longest in English criminal history. Mr Justice Gorman was meticulously patient and fair. Naturally the defence made the most of the fact that Valerie Storie had picked out another (and certainly innocent) man at the first identification parade: and Hanratty's counsel, quick-witted Michael Sherrard, Q.C.. had no difficulty in showing that the Identikit picture constructed from Valerie's information did not look much like the man in the dock. (It seldom does.) Indeed, when it was displayed for the jury to see there was a murmur of talk and even a few smiles, for the only resemblance it really bore was to the clerk of the court who was holding it up! But Valerie was an admirably cool, impressive witness, and I watched her survive a hard cross-examination unscathed. Hanratty was found guilty of murder, sentenced to death, and hanged.
Michael Gregston was dead and Hanratty was dead, but the ghost of the A6 murder has lingered on. Alphon wrote a 'confession' for a friend, Jean (John) Justice; more than a hundred Members of Parliament (including two former Home Secretaries) signed a petition for an inquiry into Hanratty's conviction; and at least three full-length books (respectively by Louis Blom-Cooper, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and Paul Foot) have questioned the jury's verdict. But no-one engaged in the case, as I was, and entirely disinterested in the innocence or guilt of the accused, as every pathologist should be-and I certainly am—could fail to be impressed by the weight of the evidence. Not only the calm Valerie Storie, but two other witnesses confidently identified Hanratty, and none of these three was shaken by cross-examination. I myself do not doubt that the Crown case has in no way been seriously dented by the books and articles written on the case.

[Limehouse]

If I remember rightly, in the same book, Simpson concludes that Tim Evans was guilty of the murder of both his wife and child. Although the book was very interesting, I didn't like Simpson's lofty attitude or his blind faith in the establishment of the day.

[reg1965]

If I remember rightly, in the same book, Simpson concludes that Tim Evans was guilty of the murder of both his wife and child. Although the book was very interesting, I didn't like Simpson's lofty attitude or his blind faith in the establishment of the day.

Hi Limehouse
I have this book, mainly because it contains A6 material and I agree with you about his attitude and views.
Reg

[reg1965]

DNA evidence thread

Hi All

I have created a new thread parallel to this one called 'A6 Murder DNA evidence' for this most contentious subject to be argued about without interfering with all the myriad of other fascinating issues surrounding this case.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

The reason that only a small piece of the underwear was retained was because it was the only piece of evidential value.
All the best
johnl

Hi johnl

If what you say is correct, then why where the rest of VS's knickers produced as evidence (exhibit 26 I think) instead of the fragment?

Also if the only charge against Hanratty was the murder of Michael Gregsten then why were the knickers even entered as evidence?

Following on from that then any mention of the rape and shooting would not have been relevant to the prosecutions case if they only had to prove that Hanratty was the gunman who shot Mike?

Bizarre isn't it!
Reg

[larue]

If I remember rightly, in the same book, Simpson concludes that Tim Evans was guilty of the murder of both his wife and child. Although the book was very interesting, I didn't like Simpson's lofty attitude or his blind faith in the establishment of the day.

agreed. he's hardly likely to bite the hand that fed him?

[larue]

Also if the only charge against Hanratty was the murder of Michael Gregsten then why were the knickers even entered as evidence?
Reg

a very good question Reg

[larue]

Originally Posted by reg1965
I would like to make a final point. I believe that the original charges against Hanratty at the Ampthill hearing was murder of MG and the rape and attempted murder of VS. The latter two were dropped for the trial at Bedford Assizes. Is this correct?

James Hanratty stood trial for his life in Bedford for the murder of Michael Gregsten! The other charges were kept in reserve in case he was not found guilty.

i know i'm thick, but i still cannot see how this would work. if the jury had pronounced JH not guilty, this would mean that he was not the gunman. i.e. not present at the time of the crime. as there was only one gunman present comitting the crimes, when would JH have gotten involved???

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by reg1965
I would like to make a final point. I believe that the original charges against Hanratty at the Ampthill hearing was murder of MG and the rape and attempted murder of VS. The latter two were dropped for the trial at Bedford Assizes. Is this correct?





i know i'm thick, but i still cannot see how this would work. if the jury had pronounced JH not guilty, this would mean that he was not the gunman. i.e. not present at the time of the crime. as there was only one gunman present comitting the crimes, when would JH have gotten involved???

The option of further charges and therefore a subsequent trial would still be available. A guilty verdict would then simply mean that the second jury would disagree with the findings of the first. Hanratty would remain, technically, innocent.

[Graham]

Hanratty was accused only of the murder of Michael Gregsten, and I would suggest that being found guilty of this crime it was, per se self-evident that he also raped and attempted to murder Valerie Storie. Had he been found not guilty of Gregsten's murder, he'd have been free to go. I can't say why Gregsten's murder was the only charge on the sheet, but there must have been a good legal reason for it.

With regard to Keith Simpson, he was very much a product of his time, and as Larue astutely points out, hardly likely to knowingly bite the hand that fed him. However, I do think he got it right about Timothy Evans, at least as far as the murder of Geraldine was concerned.

The summary execution of the Vietcong prisoner was horrible to behold, but as he was standing up when shot, and naturally enough fell to the ground afterwards, there was understandably a good deal of blood, etc., exiting from his head. However, I assume that Gregsten was kept in a more or less upright position by the car's seat and its door, so would the same result necessarily apply? This is a dreadful subject for debate, but I think it's very germane to the question concerning the possibility of the murderer being bloodied as he drove the car away. As it seems that JH carried no 'luggage' with him when he entered the car at Dorney, then I'd suggest that if his clothes were bloodied, he'd have collected fresh clothes at the first possible opportunity, doubtless from a left-luggage locker somewhere - JH seemed to use these facilities fairly frequently. Unless, of course, he was very lucky and his clothes weren't soiled.

Again, I'd ask that if anyone has a photo of the interior of the car after it was found, I'd be interested to see it.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Hi johnl

If what you say is correct, then why where the rest of VS's knickers produced as evidence (exhibit 26 I think) instead of the fragment?

Also if the only charge against Hanratty was the murder of Michael Gregsten then why were the knickers even entered as evidence?

Following on from that then any mention of the rape and shooting would not have been relevant to the prosecutions case if they only had to prove that Hanratty was the gunman who shot Mike?

Bizarre isn't it!
Reg

I believe that both the prosecution and defense accepted that the person who raped and shot VS was the same person who murdered MG, and that the most serious charge was the murder so that was the one that got prosecuted.

Following on from that, the knickers were admissable as evidence against the murderer because both sides accepted that the murderer was also the rapist.

The reason the fragment was cut out was for scientific examination (blood type) and the rest of it wasn't needed so was passed back and shown as evidence to the court, which of course was lucky because it's only that fragment that survives. What would be the purpose of showing the fragment when the rest of the knickers were available?

[Victor]

Hi Victor,

Fabulous. I'm in silly mode at the moment and I was just wondering when this evidence was being interrogated if it was able to respond and did it have an intimidating swinging light bulb overhead.

No, but it was wondering where the good cop had got too!

[simon]

Hi,
Having dimly remembered that there was once a play called Hanratty In Hell, put on at a London fringe theatre, I've just checked via google. The only mention I can find is that it was performed at the Open Space Theatre in 1976 and that Alphon was played by Kenneth Colley. Anybody know anything about this ?

Simon

[jimarilyn]

re."Hanratty in hell" play

Hi,Having dimly remembered that there was once a play called Hanratty In Hell, put on at a London fringe theatre, I've just checked via google. The only mention I can find is that it was performed at the Open Space Theatre in 1976 and that Alphon was played by Kenneth Colley. Anybody know anything about this ?Simon

Hi Simon,

The above mentioned play was indeed performed at the Open Space Theatre in the summer of 1976. A review of the play, by Ned Chaillet appeared in The Times on 2nd of July 1976 and reads as follows :-

"It is assumed in Andrew Carr's surreal polemic that James Hanratty was innocent in the A6 murder case and that his execution was wrongful. Although police corruption and a frame-up by petty criminals are some of Mr Carr's oblique suggestions as to blame, he refrains from accusations which are too specific ; which is probably just as well since there have been nearly as many libel cases as theories in the controversy.

Mr Carr sidesteps the need for specifics by setting the facts among gross fantasies and confusing his inquiry with a judicial inquiry in hell. Hanratty (Billy Hamon) is not welcomed in hell, it seems, because he "admits" that he is innocent of murder, despite his execution under English law. The susequent investigation is led by the Kray brothers who are appointed by the satanic court to recreate the original police investigation and demonstrate that it is actually British justice that is at fault.

It is a fragile device and not a wholly integrated one. It goes on too long, in a very jolly fashion, at the beginning where Ken Parry as a prurient Lord Longford acts as Hanratty's lawyer in hell and finds him disgusting in his innocence. And the device disappears before the end of the play and the dazzling theatricality of Charles Marowitz's production takes over.

Despite the theatricality, the defence of Hanratty is not simplistic. It states that when Michael Gregsten was shot dead in a lay-by on the A6 and his companion Valerie Storie was shot and raped, Hanratty was* seen by 11 witnesses in North Wales. Mr Carr arranges the material to show how the police might have arranged for Hanratty to be picked out of an identity parade by Miss Storie, who had given them three* different descriptions of the murderer. he provides scenes where criminals plan to "frame" someone for the murder, and provides the names.

Mr Marowitz, finding once again a solid base to continue his critique of British justice, animates the show with an extraordinary pageantry. The crucial identity parade is an extravagant giveaway programme, where Miss Storie is tricked into identifying Hanratty, presented with beguiling conviction by Ronald Lewis as Reginald Kray. The final hanging is counterpointed to a recreation of the murder, while police proceed on less pressing business.

That is the last production that Mr Marowitz will stage at the Open Space, and his personal brand of spectacle will be sorely missed until he re-establishes himself. It is clear from this production that he has nearly outgrown the tiny theatre in Tottenham Court Road, despite the cleverness Robin Don, his designer, has shown in containing ever more complicated sets in the space, and it will be good to see him at work in a larger theatre which can better contain his new ideas. "